Preemptive Police-State Tactics
 

Is this kind of show of force really neccessary? To me this is has nothing to do with terrorism and has everything to do with showing the public who's boss. Showing up randomly to public places and asking for ID sounds a little crazy to me.

I am a staunch civil libertarian, but I accept that certain liberties unfortunately have to be surrendered to secure a state actively involved in a war of this nature. This though is completely inexcusable.

Sounds pretty stupid to me. Lets just start racial profiling, get the job done, and quit this circus.

I have no clue how this program will do anything beyond public awareness, and it seems like a waste of resources to do it this way.

"Mary Ann Viverette, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said the Miami program is similar to those used for years during the holiday season to deter criminals at busy places such as shopping malls."

I've never seen that before. Ever.

Terrible idea.

I think it is a variation on the "flying patrol" concept, which is a well established police tactic, in which officers don't stick to a specific pattern and instead just show up somewhere. Not sure how effective such an extension of the tactic might be to deter terrorism, however.

Fucking pigs. This is bullshit. It won't do anything to stop terrorists. Just how many terrorist attacks have occurred on US soil?

They won't catch any terrorists. They probably won't catch any criminals. They will, however, arrest a bunch of civil libertarians who don't want to hand their ID over.

This is page one.

This is page two.

Are those all people who have committed terrorist attacks? Wowsers. A lot of those names don't look like they belong to muslims at all.

This is page three.

The threat is real.

Try not to be dense on purpose please.

Do you really believe showing up randomly in public in full force and asking for ID's is the way to combat terrorism?

Our government is selling a police-state, and people are buying it hook line and sinker. Be careful what you wish for.

Kutulu asked how many attacks, not how many deaths. Ustwo either misread the question or intentionally changed the subject.

If we are this upset about terroism based on that list of names why aren't there flying wedges of doctors out there randomly combating the flu virus or heart disease?


This effort by the police is to make everyone else think they are doing *something*. It's just a little show to make you feel better over the holidays.

Yes, there should be efforts made to reduce the risk of terrorism, I just don't think this method is practical or useful.

.

Not at all.

Trying reading between the lines here, I don't think any of you really think Kutulu was AKING how many attacks happened on US soil. If you think he had an honest question there you need to work on reading comprehension skills. He was implying that the number of attacks equals the risks of such attacks, which is just pathetic.

Most terrorist attacks on Americans do happen outside of the US, that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to it and dismiss the potential.

I agree that the Miami police are going to be wasting their time, and its stupid, but that doesn't mean that the threat isn't real, or do we need another list like the one above to show the threat is real? Of course that could be just one more attack, and since its the number that matters we can ignore the threat. (That last line, btw, was sarcasm).

I don't understand why Miami is doing what it is doing, while we have a President and Congress allowing illegal aliens to come in from Mexico by the 1000's daily and wants to give them ID cards while setting aside a billion tax dollars to treat them medically. Oh, I forgot, they allow this because of the cheap illegal labor., even though they know they are opening a huge door for terrorists to enter unchecked.

IMO Miami can show all the force they want, they'll only turn that city into a ghost town with their police state antics. Once the terrorists are in the country, they will find a way to get around these police power shows if they truly want to.

The media is trying to get this with the concept of a pandemic bird-flu hype (and don't get me started on that).

The list was a bit of melodrama to be sure, but basing the threat on the number of attacks is foolish. Another question would be 'How many terrorist attacks have been worse than 9/11?'

paranoia is a great motivator, particularly of worthless theaterical actions.

all you need, really, to achieve a mindset in which such nonsense as that undertaken by the miami pd makes sense is a mantra like ustwo's--"the threat is real"--for that matter, so is the threat of being hit by a meteor, of being injured in a rain of frogs, of spontaneous combustion--worst, there is the ongoing danger posed by the possibility that the plastic madonna you bought at some gas station will start weeping and then next thing you know you'll have legions of catholics sitting in lawn chairs all over your property.

yup. paranoia and its twin hysteria are great motivators: for the re-organization of military intelligence gathering to include domestic surveillance under the guise of the "war on terror"...

arbitrary displays of the capability various police departments have to move about in formation are designed to counter hysteria by turning it up. apparently, the right wants to be sure that all the social "muscles" associated with hysteria are in tip top condition---that way, if another attack were to happen, the population would be limber and prepared to bend over before any and all manly assertions of the state's monopoly on "legitimate violence" just as ustwo has.

if you are in such condition, it is easier to see some rationale behind such arbitrary displays of the ability of an urban police department to move about in formation, and from there to acquiesce to any and all such displays, and not worry about their implications. and for conservatives, this limber/toned set of muscles associated with hysteria apparently even allow for a curious modulation in their views of the state: irrational in every economic and social context, the state is suddenly rational and unerring when it comes to displays of potentials for organized violence, so long as these actions come complete with cool uniforms and manly radio communications.

so when the state regulates economic activity, it is bad bad bad; but when the state organizes displays of its paramilitary police organization and tactics, the right goes all soft inside. this must appear to make sense from the posture of bent-over acquiescence. from any other viewpoint, it seems inverted--be suspicious of the state when it is not exercizing violence, but trust it when it is.

but of course "the threat is real"....and so hysteria is required...the fact that the american petit bourgeois is willing to trade away anything and everything for the illusion of safety should deter any conceivable "terrorist" threat.

but if you think about it, who really needs terrorists if this social group is willing to trade away everything already, simply as a function of its fear of possible attacks?

I think we ought to send the Miami police force over to Baghdad, where they could do some random displays of force and demand to see ID cards. They would be much more effective over there, since as we should all know by know, Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Goodness knows we need as many enthusiastic anti-terrorists over there as we can muster. They can make it a regular part of the monthly rotation. And I'm sure there's some slush fund in Miami that could be appropriated to pay their airfare.

This is just stupid. IMO this simply sounds like it's simply a power play by the Police Chief in some internal political battle.

It'll do no good. I've had cops patrolling the UT campus at night asking for ID's, I simply tell them to fuck off. Are they good people? probably. Are they good cops? probably.

But unless I give some sort of suspision of crime I expect them to leave me the hell alone.

All this does is give any terrorists who are actually planning an attack in Miami more police targets in one location. This wont deter anything.

(reminds self that he shouldn't be posting in Politics)

That's cute RB, cops checking ID's and increased survilance(sp) of high traffic areas, something that they are well within their full legal rights to do, now makes them "paramiltary police"?

The 1984 tinfoil club here seems to be taking a little bit to deep of a look here on this one, not seeing it for what it really is; Miami, being one city, is making a move that is perhaps unnecessary, however completely legal and not at the behest of the feds, the same feds that are constantly charged with unfounded allegations of stripping away civil liberties of the American populace.

SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!

That's helpful.

mojo: perhaps you should think about what i was trying to say this way: when it comes to displays of paramilitary type order on the part of federal or state authorities, the right seems to go all weak at the knees and puts aside any concern about abrogation of civil liberties that may follow from cheerleading such actions. this tendency directly contradicts most conservative views of the state in other areas. how does this hold together? personally, i think it is yet another space in which conservative ideology is incoherent. but prove me wrong. i'd be happy to see an actual argument.

I'm not going weak at the knees, the fact is, this LONE act of LOCAL (read: not federal or state) law enforcement is not attacking anyone's civil liberties. I wholeheartedly agree it's both stupid and pointless and a waste of resources. As far as proving arguments goes, no one from the "left" (since you never seem to blink when throwing out conservative or "right") has put up any argument that is founded in reality, nor fact, that this has anything to do with erosion of any liberties, or that it is somehow related to "conservative" idealogy, the idealogy that we "lumpen conservatives" are somehow fond of consoldating power and stripping away rights of citizens.

Sometimes I go against my better judgement but...

Maimi is hardely a conservative city, and I don't hear any conservatives on this board supporting this. Most of us think its pretty stupid. We don't see it as an infringment of civil liberties either, just pointless grandstanding.

What are the legal ramifications to refusing to show ID? Would you be charged with a crime if you refuse to show it?

Unless I'm misreading what Ustwo was saying, you are blowing that one line from him WAY out of proportion. Especially when he agreed that this is a stupid idea, and I don't remember reading in this thread anyone from the "right" supporting this.

o please, dj: look at posts 8-12 and tell me that i am blowing anything out of proportion. ustwo posted a list of victims of 9/11 and concluded with the "threat is real" slogan--this move ran directly counter to the position he outlined before that and counter to what we wrote later as qualification. it was a clearly an index that tried to justify whatever displays of authority the state would decide to take in the name of the war on terror.

perhaps you read things differently than that--had i posted as late in the thread as you did, dj, perhaps i would have agreed with you and not bothered with this at all. there was no way to anticipate a response to the post. not psychic. sorry.

Will they be handing out umbrellas in case of a meteor shower as well? Parhaps we can get some advil in case of brain tumors! Maybe they should arbitratily shoot people just in case they are actuallyt extra terrestrials!

This won't stop anything, AND will waste money, recources, and manpower that could otherwise be utilized more effectively stopping crimes that are being or are going to be committed.

RB tell me how this has anything to do with Conservatives? Ustwo was pointing out that there IS a threat from terrorists. I didnt hear ONE statement from him supporting this.

Not ONE person on this thread has said this is acceptable. Now just because one city in one state has gone overboard we have to cover ourselves in tinfoil?

Put Orwell down, walk around outside and realize how much the government doesn't have control over us, nor could they with their best attempts (they cant even find my neighbor with 3 warrants when he's living in his own registered house).

Believe they can take you into custody, establish who you are, and charge you accordingly.

Approximately how many attacks are represented by your list? Just ball park.

The question you were responding to:
You responded with a victims list, but not a number of attacks.

I don't like this either but I don't really blame the police to much. I think they may be out of ideas or something as opposed to some grander scheme or conspiracy of taking away our rights. Still, bad idea but maybe not so bad intentions.

*sigh* It can't be an easy job - trying to provide security for a threat that is so invisible or unquantifieable.

Nonetheless, I really don't think terrorism is as much as a threat as the media et al is making it out to be.

wanna see how quickly this new 'tactic' of 'in your face' would stop? try saying 'no thank you, i'll just go home and watch the game'. If a majority of people STOPPED deciding that seeing a friggin football game was worth more than relinquishing their privacy then MONEY, or the lack thereof, would stop this crap in its tracks.

Roachboy has made a compelling argument about the effect of this kind of "force" would have at the state and federal level. Samcol introduced at good topic, and I have stolen his idea to start a similar topic concerning the DoD.

Kisses to Samcol, for picking his pocket. :)

I do think that either he misunderstood what was being asked, or that he was just being argumentitive, to that point. However, if you read what he said, and the posts he was responding to, they had nothing to do with the specific incident that was the topic of the thread.

i will admit that this article was in the back of my mind when i wrote this morning:

source: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earl...lita.html#more

i am still working out what i think about this.
but the blurring of the line that seperates police from military functions, and which results in direct military interference with domestic politics (under the guise of the "war on terror" obviously) seems to me an a priori bad thing.

as for the article, i dont think the writer's tone adds much to the presentation of the information.

speaking of tone....perhaps the above article (and that i have been thinking about it) accounts for my-----um-------highly-----o what's the word?------directed reading of ustwo's posts from earlier.
mea culpa.

Roachboy, I used that very same article to start a new thread about the proper role of the Dod. Your concern about a show of force at the state or federal level was my inspiration.

So, what happens when you don't show your ID? This happens.

You know I was pretty horrifed with this, and then something hit me.

Whats the difference between an aircraft and a bus, besides the obvious?

What makes aircraft special that they require ID's and buses not?

again, if people do not want to deal with this, don't take the public transportation. drive yourself. when enough people stop supporting the system like that, it will stop.

If you drive yourself the terrorists have won. Seriously though, this will only stop when people start refusing to show ID. Then the person behind them doesn't show ID, and then the next person.

Haven't we lost already if you have alter your daily schedule so you don't have to be confronted by the "Paper's Please" police?

how have the terrorists won? if police want to check ID's on public transportation, especially upon entering federal property, that is completely within their purview. now, if they should be doing random checkpoints on private vehicles asking for ID, then we have a problem.

As far as altering daily schedules.......it's all about privacy rights, correct? So what expectation of privacy do you think you are entitled to on government funded transportation as opposed to private transportation?

9/11 for one. I may not agree with it, but I certianally see the logic.

The terrorists hate us for our freedom, so why do we have to give up more of our liberty and freedom than ever before to fight the terrorists? I just can't see the logic there. Why do we have to show ID domestically when we have thousands of undocumented immigrants, illegals, aliens, terrorists, workers or whatever you want to call them coming across the borders everyday? Btw they have been doing random car searches since 9/11 and with DUI checkpoints before then.

I have every expectation of privacy from the government in public as well as private places as outlined in the 4th amendment.
They have no reason to check your papers unless they have probable cause that you are breaking the law. Throughout history governments abusing its own citizens has been a much greater threat than terrorists ever have or will be.

There has never been a requirement for "probable cause" to require identification. That requires only mere suspicion. Police can then use the identification process to refine their suspicion to a higher level (this from cases dating back to the sixties and seventies). There is NOTHING new here, cops have been doing it for thirty and more years. I had it done to me in 1983 for the crime of walking down the sidewalk by a city policeman while walking to work. I completely understood then. The law requiring identification is very old and has been challenged many times. Your information is grossly incorrect and you have an expectation for privacy in public (think about that phrase, privacy in public, it's a myth) that does NOT exist and hasn't for a few decades.

You're correct that you don't have the right of privacy in public, but as I said you have the right to privacy FROM the government in public. The fourth amendment is a restriction on policing power and has no regard whether it's public or private property. Being in public does not waive your right to be secure in your person and papers.

What did you completely understand when that cop asked you for your ID back in 1983? That he had no real reason to do so and was violating the fourth amendment? Where's this law that says you have to show your ID anyway?

There are reasons words like "Police-state" and "paper's please" have such negative connotations in the United States. Past governments that did these kind of things were the most abusive in history, and these kinds of anti-terrorism policies need to be stopped dead in their tracks.

Samcol there have been precedents set as close as 2004 that in public you may not be secure in your person and papers. Such as the Illonois(sp) case where a man was pulled over and searched externally by a cop dog, and found to have illegal "narcotics" in his possession. The search was upheld by the Supreme Court. I think there might have been a similar Nevada filing surrounding the providing of legal documents in the case of approach.

It has nothing to do with terrorism or past civilizations, it is fairly relevant in our own context.

First, every state in the Union has a requirement that someone identify themselves on request, failure to do so (the criminal charge is "Failure to identify" in New Mexico) can have criminal repercussions. If you don't have ID, then you can't provide it. But the reason behind it is crystal clear. First, an encounter in public, under certain circumstances, can be consensual, you have the option to walk away. In 1983, I was walking to work, where the dress requirement was dark clothing, about an hour before dawn in my neighborhood. The officer was doing a "Field Interview" to identify people that might be connected to criminal activity later on. This requires "mere suspicion" which is basically a minor to moderate deviation from normal contact conditions. During that contact, the officer is permitted to do a "pat down" for weapons (Terry v. Ohio) or the "Terry frisk."

What a LOT of folks know is that the Constitution restricts government activity, but they forget that it is not a suicide pact. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, that is an exception to preserve the public safety. Police have, not just the authority, but the responsibility, in the interest of public safety, to identify people that are suspicious that they encounter. 99 times out of 100, there is no record made because it turns out that their suspicions weren't warranted (as in my case in '83, the officer made no contact card or record) and nothing is ever heard or done about after that. Remember, that with all rights come responsibilities.

By stopping someone on the street, the officer is conducting a Fourth Amendment "seizure" by "seizing" your person. The courts have all viewed this, under prescribed circumstances, to be reasonable. His request for identification is a REASONABLE search, under the Fourth Amendment, or at least so says the Supreme Court. There isn't ONE SINGLE country where this isn't the case. At least in the U.S., if you don't have an ID or a passport, they'll take your word for it, not take you to jail because POSSESSING ID in most other countries is required, but not in the U.S.

Ustwo, the obvious answer to your question is that what they do with the information is different. At the airport, an agent uses ID to verify that you are who you claim to be, and that identity is checked against a watchlist database. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that a security guard on a bus was doing the same thing. In fact, every time I have to show ID to get into an event or building I wonder how this prevents crime or terrorism. We are aware that terrorists don't have driver's licenses that identify them as such.

You've got some interesting information - thanks for posting. I still think there is a difference between "suspicion" (even as slight as you describe) and blanket searches. Unless there is a reason to suspect every person on a specific bus or flight, I'd have thought that random ID checks are not an exercise of 4th Amendment seizure as there is no reason to do the check. Am I wrong in thinking there is a distinction between the two things?

I still think there is a difference between "suspicion" (even as slight as you describe) and blanket searches.
There is a difference. Blanket or random searches require no suspicion. Suspicion means that you are depending on facts that you can clearly articulate to justify a Fourth Amendment seizure of someone (a detention) and to require them to identify themselves. The articulable facts can include suspicious behavior, manner of dress, not matching the environment you are in ("that guy just doesn't look like he lives in this area"), and so on. A seizure of a person can require that the officer, if something develops later on like a complaint or an arrest of the seized person, that he justify his actions in seizing the person to identify that person. If a random or blanket contact is used, there is some kind of justification or authority that is far above the individual officer to make such a stop and would be articulated in documents.

I'd have thought that random ID checks are not an exercise of 4th Amendment seizure as there is no reason to do the check.
Okay, whenever a government agent, with authority to do so, stops someone, it is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. They are using their government authority to seize your person. If there is justification for the "seizure," then it is not "unreasonable" as stated in the Constitution. There has to be a lawful, empowering regulation or law to allow the seizure, immigration checkpoints, for instance. When there is a reasonable expectation that public safety is jeopardized, the random or blanket contact can be used to identify individuals, during that contact the officer/agent of the government is allowed to develop MORE suspicion that would allow an enforced detention to investigate criminal activity as long as the detention stays REASONABLE within the facts that he can articulate that justify the detention. There are court cases that give police strong guidelines to follow under these circumstances. So, to answer the question, depending on the risk to public safety and the possibility of an attack, a blanket or random contact system is justifiable. On the bus, after McVeigh and the two WTC attacks ('93 and 9/11) and the attack on the Pentagon in 9/11, government buildings are a high risk target and blanket and/or random searches are permitted as being REASONABLE by the courts because of the higher, inherent risk.

So, the two ideas of throwing out the drift net and seeing what we catch and a Fourth Amendment seizure of a person kind of closely interact if not overlap. The blanket search is still a Fourth Amendment seizure of a person when the demand for identification is made. But just chatting about who you are might be construed, by the courts, as a consensual encounter that you are free to walk away from, even if it gets around to a REQUEST to see your ID during that consensual encounter, and, therefore NOT a Fourth Amendment seizure of your person.